High Court of DelhiO.M.P./39/2015

Bil-Bla-Gsco(Jv) v. Ntpc Limited

2016-12-08Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar2 pages

$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. 39/2015 BIL-BLA-GSCO(JV) ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Representative of the Petitioner.

versus NTPC LIMITED ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Puneet Tanjea & Ms. Shaheen, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

O R D E R

% 08.12.2016

1. The Court is informed by a representative of the Petitioner is present in the Court that the counsel for the Petitioner is not available today. There is not even a lawyer on his behalf to seek an adjournment. .

2. It is seen that the arbitral proceedings are already in progress. On 2nd September, 2016, the following order was passed: "On 9th January, 2015 a statement was made on behalf of the respondent that with regard to Advance Bank Guarantees, the respondent shall invest in an interest bearing FDR(s) for a period of 3 months or till such time the petition is decided. A suggestion is given on behalf of the petitioner that the arbitration proceedings are pending and this order may continue during the arbitration proceedings. The respondent is not agreeable. Pleadings are complete. List on 8th December, 2016." O.M.P. 39/2015

3. It is noticed that in the present case on 9th January, 2015 itself, the Court was informed that the three Bank Guarantees (BG) as mentioned in para 9 (b), (c) & (d) of the petition have already been encashed. The fourth BG, viz., performance BG as mentioned in para 9 (a) of the petition was not invoked. It is now stated that the said performance BG has since been returned to the Petitioner.

4. As far as placing the amount realised on encashment of the three BGs is concerned in a fixed deposit (FD), Mr. Taneja has drawn the attention of the Court to an order dated 22nd May, 2015 passed by the Division Bench (DB) in FAO (OS) No.253/2015 Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. IVRCL Limited whereby an order of the Single Judge requiring the encashed amount to be placed in an FD was set aside. Mr. Taneja states that the final Award of the arbitral tribunal in this regard, subject to challenges in the Court, will be abided by the Respondent.

5. In that view of the matter, no further directions are called for. The petition is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

DECEMBER 08, 2016 b'nesh O.M.P. 39/2015